Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study for the ... - majer

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201344Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Study for theScale of Attitudes towards Chemistry HomeworkAyşem Seda ÖnenAssoc. Prof. Dr., Department of Chemistry Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkeyaysemseda@gmail.com, Phone: +90 312 297 67 83 Fax: +90 312 297 8600Canan KoçakDr., Department of Chemistry Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkeycanan.kck@gmail.comAbstractIn this study, new items were added to the “Scale of Attitudes TowardsHomework”, which was developed by Yucel (2004) with the aim of determiningsecondary school students’ attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks they aregiven. The final version of the scale was also analyzed in terms of its validity andreliability via the exploratory and confirmatory factory analysis. For the reformationof the assessment tool, the sampling (n=250) was enhanced up to 630 secondaryschool students. Following steps were taken in the development of the Scale ofAttitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks: (1) Literature review andconstruction of the item pool, (2) Taking expert opinions, (3) Total correlations ofitems, (4) Item distinctiveness, (5) Exploratory factor analysis, (6) Guttman Spithalfcoefficient internal consistency reliability obtained through Cronbach Alpha andSplit-half method. (7) Examination of the correlations between subscales (8)Confirmatory factor analysis.The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient of the scalewas calculated to be .85 and the conclusions of the confirmatory factor analysissupported the structure with three subdimensions. Confirmatory factor analysisconcluded that the model had an acceptable fit value and the scale was reliable andvalid in terms of determining positive and negative attitudes of students towardschemistry homework tasks. In other words, the final version of the scale was foundto be reliable and valid in terms of determining the attitudes of secondary schoolstudents towards homework.KeywordsThe scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks, reliability, validity,exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis.

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201345IntroductionAcademic achievement levels of students have been accepted as an important indicator ofthe education system in Turkey as well as many countries. With the aim of determining thefailures and elements in need of improvement within the education system, homework hasbeen a common topic of evaluation activities. Homework is a task given to students toperform outside the school for enhancing and enabling the permanence of the learntknowledge or experiences. Students take the advantage of homework studies by reinforcingtheir knowledge when revising or solving problems through focusing on the points theymiss during the lessons (Sarigöz, 2011). Homework, as one of the most efficient learningactivity outside the school, is a functional tool when students lack the adequate time forindividual work or practice in the classroom due to high number of students in a classroomor lack of time allocated (Yucel, 2004). Students, who complete their homework tasks timely,not only revise what they learn during the lesson but also develop their own ways ofstudying for reviewing the topics (Paulu & Perkinson, 1995). Homework tasks are notnecessarily written activities. Students should be able to use new tools and perform newexperiments. Hence, further observation and experiments facilitate students in becomingaware of their knowledge and skills while affecting their development on the positive (Bryan& Burstein, 2004; Cooper, 2001; Macbet, 2003; Swanson, 2001).Constructivist approach, as one of the latest trends in education, has affected the visions ofmany countries by its focus on the knowledge, construction of the knowledge and its usage(Acat, Anılan & Anagun, 2007). It has been embraced in Turkey starting from the 2004-2005academic year. Major changes in educational approaches and practices require the reflectionof these changes in the homework tasks given to students. Students’ roles in theconstructivist approach are to research, examine, evaluate and learn on their own whileteachers take the role of guides as experts. This causes the constructivist approach to beconsidered as an approach involving irregularity and lacking order. However, constructivistapproach requires more order in the classroom than traditional approaches, which maysometimes be complex for the inexperienced teachers (Foote, Brophy & Battaglia, 2001;Karacaoğlu, 2010). Similarly, homework tasks assigned by inexperienced teachers remainmeaningless and dysfunctional for students. Constructivist approach requires theassignment of homework tasks, which enable students to transfer knowledge into newsituations, make comparisons, share knowledge and aim further than simply accomplishingactivities and presenting them in the classroom (Cooper, Lindsay, Nye & Greathouse,1998;Cooper, 2001; Corno, 2000; Gill & Shlossman, 1996).Homework assignments do not only provide the revision of the topics. They serve variousaims such as decreasing the possibility of forgetting, reinforcing learnt topics, keepingstudents’ minds active, developing research and expression skills, enabling students toorganize their ideas, teaching students to reach the sources of knowledge, ensuring theattainment of problem solving skills, making cause and effect connections and improvingself confidence levels (Cooper, 2001; Doyle & Barbar, 1990; Fehrman, Keith, & Reimers,1987; Foyle &Bailey, 1985; Gur, 2002; Hong, 1998; Kathleen, 2001; Krapp, 1988; Kucukahmet,2004; Neilson, 2005; Okutan, 1990; Onal, 1995; Smith, 1989; Tan, 2005; Temel 1989; Yesilyurt,

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 2013462006). It is very important to assess to what extent these goals are achieved as well as theeffectiveness of the practice at all levels (Aladag & Dogu, 2009; Batan, 2007; Buyuktokatli,2009; Cahit & Dogan, 2009; Cetinkaya, 1992; Gur, 2002; Kapikiran & Kiran, 1999; Kiciroglu,2004; Ocal, 2009; Sarıgoz, 2011; Yesilyurt, 2006; Yucel, 2004; Yucel, 2008). In the light of thisview, the “Scale of Attitudes Towards Homework”, which was developed by Yucel (2004)with the aim of determining attitudes of secondary school students towards chemistryhomework tasks was improved. In order to increase the reliability of the data obtained fromthe scale, the number of items were increased by addition of items, which are thought toexemplify the qualities to be assessed and distinguish between sub-categories. The samplinggroup (n=250) was extended (n=630). The reliability and validity studies were repeatedthrough exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. It is assumed that the assessed datashall depend on a single treat as much as possible. However, considering the content of eachitem, it is difficult to say that it assesses a single dimension (Ozguven, 2004). Therefore, thescale, which had a single dimension in the previous version, was analyzed for potentialexplanation on various variables in meaningful, interrelated and independent factors thatare less in number (Cronbach, 1990; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson & Tatham, 2006; Nunnally,1967). Acording to Cokluk, Sekercioğlu and Buyukozturk (2010) knowledge about thestructure of assessment could increase with the exploratory factor analysis. However, inorder to obtain detailed knowledge, this analysis could remain inadequate. Therefore, manystudies involve both exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis as they have known andunknown variables. In order to display the factor pattern of the assessment tool, it isrequired that confirmatory analysis shall be administered along with the exploratoryanalysis. Hence, the new version of the scale was applied confirmatory factor analysis inorder to assess whether it supported the expected structure or not.MethodsThis study aimed to develop a Likert-type scale by restructuring the “Scale of AttitudesTowards Homework “developed by Yucel (2004) with the aim of determining secondaryschool students’ attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks. To achieve this aim, a total of630 (487 female and 143 male) students studying at 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades of generalsecondary schools were selected as sampling. As Tabachnick and Fidell defines 300participants as “good”, 500 as “very good”, and “1000” as “perfect” number of sampling infactor analysis, the pilot study concluded that adequate data were obtained for the statisticalanalysis.Results of ResearchPreparation of the Data Collection ToolSince it is impossible to observe behaviors of individuals directly, attitudes could be derivedfrom their observable behaviors (Tavşancil, 2010). The “Scale of Attitudes TowardsChemistry Homework Tasks” was developed in the light of this assumption. Followingsteps were taken in the development of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201347Homework Tasks: (1) Literature review and construction of the item pool, (2) Taking expertopinions, (3) Total correlations of items, (4) Item distinctiveness, (5) Exploratory factoranalysis, (6) Guttman Spithalf coefficient internal consistency reliability obtained throughCronbach Alpha and Split-half method. (7) Examination of the correlations betweensubscales (8) Confirmatory factor analysis.Review and Item Pool ConstructionThe most important challenge in developing an original scale is writing items appropriate tothe theoretical structures of characteristics to be assessed. Therefore, the theoreticalstructures of characteristics shall be well-examined and researched in terms of dimensions.Otherwise, obtained data may fail to support the theoretical structures of the characteristic(Seker & Gencdogan, 2006). Therefore, during the preparation of the Scale of AttitudesTowards Chemistry Homework Tasks the theoretical structure was carefully examined withthe aim of constructing the scale format (Cooper, 2001; Corno, 2000; Cowan, & Hallam, 1999;Kralovec & Buell, 2001; Mengel, Holchroft & Okan, 1989; Zahn, 1966); similar scales withdifferent sampling were searched (Berberoglu, 1990; Gramling, 2011; Sarigoz, 2011; Xu, 2007)and statistical resources for developing a data collection tool were analyzed (Bindak, 2005;Cokluk, Sekercioğlu & Buyukozturk, 2010; Cronbach, 1990; Hair, et al., 2006; Kalayci, 2006;Nunnally, 1967; Ozguven, 2004; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996, 2001). Then, the obtainedstatements were added to the scale previously developed by Yucel (2004). More than a singleitem was considered for each attitude to be questioned. Moreover, attitude items werereorganized in terms of sentence length and Turkish grammatical structure. An item pool of30 items, which were thought to be adequate for distinguishing and to exemplify theattitudes to be assed, was created. The direction of an attitude means its emotionalcharacteristic such as displaying likes or dislikes as well as positive and negative feelings.The degree of an attitude reflects the acceptance or refusal according to the level of itsdirection (Ozguven, 2004). Therefore, it was decided that the Scale of Attitudes TowardsChemistry Homework Tasks shall be in 5-point Likert-type, which is common in the field ofsocial sciences.Taking Expert OpinionsFor providing the content validity of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry HomeworkTasks, expert opinions were taken. Experts examined the scale in terms of its capacity toassess students’ attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks successfully as well as itsappropriateness to the age levels of secondary school students. The number of items wasreduced according to the expert opinions and a total of 26 items were obtained with 14positive and 12 negative attitude contents.Application StageLegal permissions were taken from the Ankara City Directorate of Education for applyingthe study in the certain secondary schools. Randomly chosen 630 students formed thesampling of the pilot study. The data obtained were analyzed in terms of students’ responsesto all items or a single one as a means of pre selection. As a result of this stage, 607 data wereuploaded to computers for evaluation purposes regarding the analysis. Since the analyseswould be done via SPSS 15.0 and Lisrel 8.7, the positive items of the scale were coded from 5to 1 indicating “Strongly agree” to “Strongly disagree”. Negative items were coded from 1 to

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 2013485 on the opposite way. Therefore, the highest score that could be obtained from the trialformat was 130 and the lowest was 26. The statistical results regarding the reliability andvalidity analysis of the scale are explained in the following related sections of this paper.Item AnalysisItem analysis is one of the statistical analyses made in scale development studies. Itemanalysis is made with the aim of removing or revising the ineffective items in a datacollection tool (Ozguven, 2004) and it presents strong data on the structural validity of thescale. Therefore, item-total correlation-based item analysis was made for the validity andreliability studies of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks along withthe independent group-t test made for the comparison of 27% sub group, main group anditem scores. Students’ scores were listed from highest to lowest and top 163 students, whichformed the 27% of the sampling, were coded as main group (1), while the last 163 studentswere coded as sub-group (2). The values obtained from the evaluation of the scale aredisplayed on Table 1.Table 1. Item analysis values of scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks.1: Main2: Subt*Item totalCorrelation1:Main2: Subt*Item totalCorrelation12345671 3.75 10 .41 14 1 3.92 9.1 .332 2.32 2 2.691 3.88 12 .45 15 1 3.62 8.4 .372 2.34 2 2.471 3.00 3 .10 16 1 3.43 6.9 .312 2.51 2 2.501 4.18 12 .47 17 1 3.84 12 .442 2.67 2 2.341 4.12 13 .49 18 1 3.96 12 .472 2.53 2 2.511 3.56 8 .31 19 1 3.99 12 .462 2.45 2 2.471 4.01 11. .46 20 1 3.61 8.3 .352 2.60 2 2.558 13.55 5 .24 21 1 3.8911 .442 2.75 22.4991 4.11 14. .48 22 1 3.49 7.5 .262 2.42 2 2.44

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201349101112131 4.07 13. .49 23 1 3.77 10 .432 2.40 2 2.461 4.19 10. .41 24 1 3.61 8.1 .362 2.87 2 2.501 4.25 14. .49 25 1 3.61 9.4 .352 2.54 2 2.331 4.02 10 .44 26 1 3.01 3.1 .112 2.68 2 2.53*p

FactorLoadingDescribedpercentage ofdifferencesAverageFαpMiddle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201350appropriateness of the data structure were proven. Principal components analysis wasapplied as the most frequently used factorization techniques of exploratory factor analysis(Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001). The Varimax Vertical rotation technique was used for rotationand 3 factors were found to have eigenvalues () higher than 1.00. Later, the overlapping ofthe items and their factor loading values were evaluated according to the literature (Cokluk,Sekercioglu & Buyukozturk, 2010; Hair et al., 2006; Tabachnick & Fidel, 2001) and the itemswith factor loading values equal to 0.40 or higher, and the items with more than .01differences in their both loading values were determined. Therefore 21 items with factorloading values between. 46 and. 83 were included in the final version of the scale while items7 and 17 were removed from the scale as they could not match the literature scope.654321013579111315171921Figure 1. Scree plot for scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasksAccording to the Scree Plot, which serves to the major aim of the factor analysis and helps indetermining the number of factors according to its contributions to the variance (Cokluk,Sekercioglu & Buyukozturk, 2010), the point where the graphic curve has an instant fall iswhere the third factor is located. Therefore, the items of the Scale of Attitudes TowardsChemistry Homework Tasks were decided to be listed under three factors. One of thesefactors was called “Usefulness” with its content of benefits of chemistry homework tasks.The second factor with negative attitudes was named as “Negativity” and the third factorwith items containing positive attitudes was called “Positivity”. Some values obtained fromthe exploratory factor analysis are displayed on Table 3.Table 3. Exploratory factor analysis on the scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks.FactorsFactor 1 (Usefulness) 5.3 20.2 3.36 9.04 .84 .000111 .75912 .690

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 2013519 .68910 .68519 .62013 .60121 .6014 .5965 .52618 .516Factor 2 (Negativity) 2.6 13.9 3.0 7.07 .74 .000115 .72516 .68420 .6136 .59424 .57925 .53014 .52522 .464Factor 3 (Positivity) 1.4 11.0 3.1 7.0 .72 .00011 .8312 .81923 .515Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling= 0.84; The (variance) explanation rate of the total difference: 45.315Table 3 displays that the factor loading of items grouped under the structure with threefactors had higher values than acceptable and the variance explanation score of the threefactors was found to be 45.31%. This value is described as adequate in social sciences (Scereret.al., 1988; adapted by Tavsancil, 2005). Similarly, the contribution of the factors to the totalvariance was 20.2% for the first factor, 13.9% for the second factor and 11% for the thirdfactor, which is adequate. These findings show that the Scale of Attitudes TowardsChemistry Homework Tasks has a strong factor structure. In order to assess whether thethree sub-dimensions of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201352addressed the same characteristics, Pearson Multiplication of Moments was calculatedamong the three factors. The findings are displayed on Table 4.Table 4. The correlation coefficients of scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks factors.Factor Usefulness Negativitiy PositivitiyUsefulness 1 .21 .52Negativitiy .21 1 .22Positivitiy .52 .22 1p

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201353Figure 2. Path diagram for scale of attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks.The model was questioned based on the literature in terms of its production of acceptablevalues (Brown, 2006; Byne, 1994; Cokluk, Sekercioglu & Buyukozturk, 2010; Hair, et al., 2006;Hooper, Caughlan & Muller, 2008; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996;Sumer, 2000; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001; Kline, 2005; Raykov & Marcoulides, 2008; Yilmaz &Celik, 2009), and the results were shown on Table 5.Table 5. Fit measures of the modelFit Measure Value Fittingχ2/df 3.0 GoodRMSEA .060 GoodGFI .090 GoodAGFI .087 AcceptableRMR 0.05 GoodNFI 0.91 GoodNNFI 0.93 GoodCFI 0.94 GoodThe model was found to have acceptable fit values as a result of the confirmatory factoranalysis as displayed on Table 5. In other words, the confirmatory factor analysis resultssupported the finding that the scale has three dimensions. These findings show that the scaleis a reliable and valid data collection tool in determining students’ attitudes towardschemistry homework tasks.Results of ResearchMany variables could be assessed in education. However, this requires assessment tools,which facilitate the observation of the size to be assessed and its mathematical expression.Each tool enables the observation to be made more sensitively. Assessment tools used ineducation vary according to the structure of the size to be assessed and the group that the

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201354tool shall be administered to. For assessment, the assessment tools appropriate to the goal ofthe evaluation shall be selected or developed (Turgut, 1995). In the light of this view, the“Scale of Attitudes Towards Homework”, which was developed by Yucel (2004) with theaim of determining attitudes of secondary school students towards chemistry homeworktasks was improved with the addition of new items 2 .The reliability and validity were analyzed for the final version of the study. In constructionand changing of attitudes, educational institutions and teachers have important effects(Tavşancil, 2010). However, while questioning these effects, students’ attitudes shall also bedetermined. Therefore, various assessment tools have been developed and applied with theaim of assessing students’ attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks (Berberoglu, 1990;Gramling, 2011; Gurlevik, 2006; Oguz, 2010; Sarigoz, 2011; Tilgel, 2010; Xu, 2007; Yucel,2004). In this study, the scale that was developed by Yucel (2004) was restructured to servebetter to analyzing students’ attitudes towards chemistry homework tasks from differentperspectives. For displaying the factor pattern of the tool, both exploratory and confirmatoryfactor analyses were applied. The process of improving the Scale of Attitudes TowardsChemistry Homework Tasks was initiated with the literature review and item poolconstruction. The previously prepared pool of 45 items was reevaluated and an item pool of30 items was obtained. After taking the expert opinions, the number of items decreased to26. A pilot study was made with the participation of 630 secondary school students. The datawere evaluated and 607 data were found to be appropriate to analysis. Statistical analysisstarted with item analysis. Item-total correlation-based item analysis was made for thevalidity and reliability studies of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry HomeworkTasks along with the independent group-t test made for the comparison of 27% sub group,main group and item scores. Factor analysis stage followed the item analysis. Prior to theexploratory factor analysis, in order to test the sampling size for appropriateness infactorization, Kaiser- Meyer- Olkin test was applied and the result was found to be 0.84. Thisshowed that the sampling size was adequate for factor analysis (Hair et.al., 2006). Moreover,the Barlett Globalization Test results concluded with a qhi-square value of significance at the0.0001 level [χ2 = 3913.005]. Principal components analysis and Varimax Vertical Rotationtechnique were used for the exploratory factor analysis. The analyses concluded with threefactors with eigenvalues () higher than 1.00. In the end, 21 items with factor loading valuesbetween .46 and .83 were included in the scale, while the items 7 and 17 were removed asthey failed to comply with the acceptability standards. The three dimensional structure ofthe Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks was made certain with the ScreePlot Graph. The first of these factors was called “Usefulness” with its content of benefits ofchemistry homework tasks. The second factor with negative attitudes was named as“Negativity” and the third factor with items containing positive attitudes was called“Positivity”.The Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks was found to have a strongfactor structure as their factor loadings were found to be higher than acceptable values andthe explanation rate of the three factors was adequate being 45.31%. In order to assess2Developed scale can be found at the corresponding author's e-mail (Contact:aysemseda@gmail.com).

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201355whether the three sub-dimensions of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry HomeworkTasks addressed the same characteristics, Pearson Multiplication of Moments was calculatedamong the three factors. The analysis concluded with the determination of positiverelationship among the factors (r = .52, r = .21, r = .22, p = 0,0001). This finding was acceptedas supportive of the consistent factor structure of the scale. The reliability of the scale wasanalyzed through Cronbach Alpha Coefficient and Split Half, which concluded with theCronbach Alpha (α) as. 85 and the Guttman Splithalf coefficient determined via the Split-halfmethod as 0.84. This is another finding that the scale is reliable (Nunnally, 1967).Additionally, The Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficient was calculated for the first subdimensionas. 84, for the second sub-dimension as. 74 and for the third sub-dimension as. 72.This shows that all items of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks areconsistent. Finally, the three-dimensional structure obtained was confirmed via thestructural equality modeling. Confirmatory factor analysis concluded that the model had anacceptable fit value (χ2/df=3, RMSEA=0.06, GFI=0.90, AGFI=0.87, RMR= .050, NFI= 0.91,NNFI= 0.93, CFI= 0.94) and the scale was reliable and valid in terms of determining positiveand negative attitudes of students towards chemistry homework tasks. However, theadministration of the Scale of Attitudes Towards Chemistry Homework Tasks could beapplied to a greater number of students from different cities of Turkey for furthercontribution to both the scale and the subject field.AcknowledgementsAlong with the effects of homework tasks on secondary school students’ achievements, theirattitudes should also be determined. Therefore, this restructured scale is thought to serve theliterature as a reliable and valid assessment tool in determining students’ attitudesDetermination of the dimensions of the attitudes is thought to have various benefits for theresearchers of the subject field. With the help of the developed assessment tool, secondaryschools students’ attitudes towards their homework tasks would be able to be analyzed interms of their different dimensions. Determination of students’ attitudes through the scalewould set a great resource for teachers in assigning homework tasks for their students.Therefore, determination of students’ attitudes through the scale and the analysis of theobtained data are thought to contribute not only the literature but also the whole world ofeducation.ReferencesAcat, B., Anılan, H., & Anagün, S.S. (2007). Yapılandırmacı öğrenme ortamlarınındüzenlenmesinde karşılaşılan sorunlar ve çözüm önerileri. VI. Ulusal Sınıf ÖğretmenliğiSempozyumu, Eskisehir, 27-29 Nisan.Aladağ, C., & Doğu, S. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde verilen ödevlerin öğrencigörüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi,21, 15-23.Batan, B. (2007). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin ev ödevleri ile ilişkili tutumlarını etkileyen faktörler.Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.Berberoğlu, G. (1990). Kimyaya ilişkin tutumların ölçülmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim, 76. 16-27.

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201356Bindak, R. (2005). Tutum ölçeklerine madde seçmede kullanılan tekniklerinkarşılaştırılması. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6 (10), 17-26.Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: TheGuilford Press.Bryan, T., & Burstein, K. (2004). Improving homework completion and academicperformance: Lessons from special education. Theory Into Practice, 43(3), 213–219.Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: basicconcepts, applications, and programming. New Jersey: Lawrence Erbaum AssociatesPublisher.Büyüktokatlı, N. (2009). İlköğretimde ev ödevi uygulamalarına ilişkin öğretmen görüşlerininincelenmesi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal BilimlerEnstitüsü, Konya.Cahit, Y., & Doğan, S. (2009). Fen ve teknoloji dersinde öğrencilerin ev ödeviperformansını arttırmaya yönelik bir eylem araştırması. Çankaya Üniversitesi FenEdebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 12, 221-238.Cooper, H. (2001). Homework for all in moderation. Educational Leadership, 34-38.Cooper, H., Lindsay, J.J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudesabout homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and studentachievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 70–83.Corno, L. (2000). Looking at homework differently. The Elementary School Journal, 100,529–548.Cowan, R.S., & Hallam, S. (1999). What do we know about homework. Institute of EducationViewpoint 9, London: University of London.Cronbach, L. J.(1990). Essentials of psychological testing. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row.Çetinkaya, A. (1992). Adana ili merkez ortaokullarında ev ödevlerine ilişkin karşılaşılansorunlar. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Adana.Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenliistatistik. SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Doyle, M. E. & Barber, B. S. (1990). Homework as a learning experiences (3rd. Edition).Washington, D.C: National Education Association.Fehrman, P. G., Keith, T. Z., & Reimers, T. M. (1987). Home influence on school learning:direct and indirect effects of parental involvment on high school grades. Journal ofEducational Research, 80, 330-337.Foote,C.J., Vermette, P.J., & Battaglia, C. (2001). Constructivist strategies: meeting standardsand engaging adolescent minds, eye on education. N.Y: Larchmont.Foyle, H. C. & Bailey, G. D. (1985). Homework in the classroom: Can it make a difference instudentachievement?http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/contentstorage01/0000019b/80/30/3f/aa.pdf (Web Adresinden Ekim 2008 Tarihinde Alınmıştır.)Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (1996). A sin against childhood: Progressive education andthe crusade to abolish homework, 1897–1941. American Journal of Education, 105, 27–66.

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201357Gramling, M. A. (2011). Effect of two intervention strategies on science homework completion. Aprofessional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degreeof Master of Science in Science Education, Montana State University Bozeman,Montana.Gür, H. (2002). Ev ödevi yapma stillerinin akademik başarıya etkisi. FromWeb:http://www.matder.org.tr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=8&Itemid.Gürlevik, G. (2006). Ortaöğretim matematik derslerinde ev ödevlerine yönelik öğretmen veöğrenci görüşleri (ankara ili çankaya ilçesi örneği). Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi ÜniversitesiEğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü Eğitim Programları ve Öğretimi Bilim Dalı, Ankara.Hair, J., J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).Multivariate Data Analysis (6th ed.).Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Hong, E. (1998). Homework style, homework environment, and academic achievement.Journal of Research in Rural Education, 21(2).Hooper D, Coughlan, J., & Mullen ,M.R. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelinesfor determining model fit. Elective Journal Business Research Methods, 6(1): 53-60.Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLISCommand Language. USA: Scienticif Software International.Kalaycı, Ş. (2006). SPSS uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri. Ankara: AsilYayıncılık.Kapıkıran, Ş. & Kıran, H.(1999). Ev ödevinin öğrencinin akademik başarısına etkisi. PAÜ.Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 5, 54-60.Karacaoğlu, Ö.C. (2010). Pisa sonuçları ve yapılandırmacı yaklaşım. Eğitim BülteniDergisi, 32,11–15.Kathleen, V. (2001). Parental involvement in homework. Educational Psychologist, 36(3),195-209 .Kıcıroğlu, F. (2004). Ankara il merkezinde kız meslek lisesi tekstil-konfeksiyon bölümündekiöğretmen, öğrenci ve ailelerin ev ödevlerine yaklaşımları. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, GaziÜniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara.Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (Second Edition),NY: Guildford Publications, Inc.Kralovec, E., & Buell, J. (2001). End homework now. Educational Leadership, 39-42.Krapp, J. V. (1988). Teaching research skills: a critical-thinking approach. School LibraryMedia Journal, 34 (5), 18–27.Küçükahmet, L. (2004). Öğretimde planlama ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Nobel.Macbeth, A. (2003). Homework in europe. A discussion paper prepared for the europeanparents association. Unpublished Paper.Mengel, J. A., Holcroft, J., & Zahn, R. D. (1966). Attitudes toward homework. TheElementary School Journal, 67(1), 41-44.Neilson, W. (2005). Homework and performance for time-constrained students. EconomicsBulletin, 9(1), 1-6.

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201358Nunnally, J, C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Oğuz, M.A. (2010). Ortaöğretim coğrafya derslerinde ev ödevlerine yönelik öğretmen görüşleri(Yozgat ili örneği). Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü,Ankara.Okan, K. (1989). Ev ödevi hazırlama teknikleri. Ankara: Seçkin Ofset.Okutan, M. (1990). Yeni ödev yönetmeliğinin getirdiği yenilikler nelerdir? Milli EğitimDergisi, 94, 73–77.Öcal, S. (2009). İlköğretim 4. ve 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin ev ödevlerine yönelik tutumlarınınoluşmasında ailelerin ve öğretmenlerin rolü. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mustafa KemalÜniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Antakya.Önal, İ. H. (1995). Ödevlerle kazandırılan değerler. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 126, 68–69.Özdamar, K. (1997). Paket programlar ile istatistiksel veri analizi. Eskişehir: AnadoluÜniversitesi Yayını.Özgüven, İ.E. (2004). Psikolojik testler. Ankara: PDREM Yayınları.Paulu, N., & Perkinson, K. (1995). Helping your child with homework. From Web:http://www.kidsource.com/kidsource/content/homework.html.Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis(First Edition). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Sarıgöz, O. (2011). Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin kimya derslerinde verilen ev ödevlerihakkındaki düşüncelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Electronic Journal of Vocational Colleges,December, 80–87.Scherer, R. F., Wiebe, F. A., Luther, D. C., & Adams J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping:factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 62, 763–770.Smith, J. B. (1989). Library media center programs for middle schools; a curriculum basedapproach. Chicago: American Library Assaciation.Schumacker, R.E., & Lomax R.G. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling(First Edition). New Jersey: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates Inc.Sümer, N. (2000).Yapısal eşitlik modelleri. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 3(6) , 49–74.Swanson, B. (2001). How important is homework.(http://“eric.ed.gov/archives/homework.html).Şeker, H. & Gençdoğan, B. (2006). Psikolojide ve eğitimde ölçme aracı geliştirme. Ankara:Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Xu, J. (2007). Middle-school homework management: more than just gender and familyinvolvement. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 173–189.Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:Harper Collins.Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidel, L.S. (2001).Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & BaconInc.Tan, Ş. (2005). Öğretimi planlama ve değerlendirme. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık.

Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, Issue 6Year 201359Tavşancıl, E. (2010). Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi. Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.Temel, A. (1989). Öğrenci ödevleri bilinçli verilmeli. Çağdaş Eğitim Dergisi, 140, 12–14.Tilgel, H., (2010). Attitudes of university english preparatory school students towards ICTenhanced homewok. M.A. Thesis, Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences,Ankara.Yeşilyurt, S. (2006). Lise öğrencilerinin biyoloji derslerinde verilen ev ödevlerine karşıtutumları üzerine bir çalışma. Erzincan Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 8 (1), 37–53.Yılmaz, V., & Çelik, E. Ç. (2009). LISREL ile yapısal eşitlik modellemesi -1. temel kavramlar,uygulamalar, programlama. Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Yücel, S. (2004). Ortaöğretim düzeyindeki öğrencilerin kimya derslerinde verilen evödevlerine karşı tutumlarının incelenmesi. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24 (1), 147–159.Yücel, A. (2008). İlköğretim 7. sınıf sosyal bilgiler dersinde verilen performans ödevleri hakkındaöğretmen–veli- öğrenci görüşleri (konya örneği). Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi,Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Konya.